Reza Aslan’s Zealot, a second-rate rehashing of discredited
theories

Published: 1 October 2013 (GMT+10)

Reza Aslan is no Bible scholar, and it shows.

Zealot reads like every low-budget ‘historical Jesus’ documentary
ever made. Reza Aslan seems to say that you can trust hardly anything in the
Gospels (except the particular points the author wants to twist to make his
own points) because they were written decades after Jesus lived—so you
should believe what he writes nearly 2,000 years later.

Aslan has a Ph.D. in sociology of religion and he is an associate professor
of creative writing at the University of California at Riverside. But what
he claims to be, and what he is demonstrably not, is a “scholar of religions
with a Ph.D. in the subject”.

It seems that every author of a ‘reinterpreting Jesus’ book has
to prove his credentials by showing how he was a former evangelical. Aslan
shares his story of his conversion as a teenager at youth camp. But like thousands
of other former Christians, an intellectual journey led away from the faith
that he had embraced. “In college, where I began my formal study of the
history of religions, that initial discomfort soon ballooned into full-blown
doubts of my own” (xix). Of course, there are many Bible scholars in
academia whose faith was only strengthened by their studies, but they don’t
become media darlings and we don’t hear as much about them.

Aslan argues that Jesus, like other revolutionaries in His time, was an anti-Rome
political figure who preached a message of liberation from Caesar. It was only
later when Paul came along that Jesus became a peace-loving spiritual leader.
This thesis has been put forward and refuted multiple times, as Larry Hurtado
demonstrated:

Aslan argues that Jesus, like other revolutionaries
in His time, was an anti-Rome political figure who preached a message of
liberation from Caesar.

Let’s track backward chronologically through some of the various
prior appearances of this particular zombie. We can start with Jesus and
the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity,
by S. G. F. Brandon (Manchester University Press, 1967). Brandon was a respected
scholar and presented what is still probably the best scholarly attempt to
proffer the idea that Jesus was (or aspired to be) a political revolutionary.

… But the “granddaddy”-predecessor of them all,
perhaps, was the 18th century figure, Hermann Samuel Reimarus, whose manuscript
on Jesus as failed revolutionary lay unpublished for a number of years until
Lessing discovered it. …

… in each successive presentation, this idea has been engaged
patiently by scholars and shown to be variously selective in the data … and
inconsistent (or incoherent) in method. The result in each case is that the
idea was dust-binned as a failure, and scholarship gets on with trying out
and critically testing ideas and evidence. And the general public goes on to
other fads and fashions.1

Aslan has read a fair bit of secondary literature, but cherry-picks it to
make his own points. His complete lack of training in exegesis shows. It will
suffice to show a few of the laughable errors he commits. First, when writing
about the Temple cleansing scene, Aslan says that it would have been a capital
offense: “After all, an attack on the business of the Temple is akin
to an attack on the priestly nobility, which, considering the Temple’s
tangled relationship with Rome, is tantamount to an attack on Rome” (p.
75). Later he asserts, “Even the slightest threat to the Temple would
instantly arouse the attention of the priestly and Roman authorities. Several
things make this interpretation impossible:

It is “a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests
and elders of the people” (Matthew 26:47)—Jews—who arrest
Jesus, not Romans. He is tried first by the Sanhedrin, not by the Romans.

Even with the false testimony, the only charge they could come up with
was blasphemy—not a crime under Roman law, especially when Romans had
contempt for Jews and what they viewed as their odd little superstition.

Pilate was able to see that Jesus was innocent (Luke 23:4; 13–15),
and crucified Jesus only to avoid a riot (Mark 14:14–15).

The Romans had nothing but contempt for the Jews. Even the crucifixion
narrative betrays this (e.g. John 19:19ff).

This is not a minor slip; this is sloppiness indicative of the quality of
the entire book. He says a woodworker in Jesus’ day would have had little
to do. Even without making the correction that tekton often can indicate
some sort of stonemason as well as carpenter, most scholars believe that the
construction in nearby Sepphoris would have meant steady work for artisans
like Joseph and Jesus.

He has a similarly wrongheaded approach to Jesus’ pronouncement on taxes.
He argues that when Jesus says “Give to God what is God’s”,
Jesus means the land of Israel (p. 77). Only someone profoundly ignorant
of all the testimony about Jesus and the formation of Christianity (which after
all is a Jesus movement) could make such a profound misinterpretation. In fact,
in John 18:36 Jesus specifically says, “My kingdom is not of this world”—twice!
Furthermore, nowhere in early Christianity is there the slightest hint that
this is a land-oriented faith. Centuries later when it becomes centered around
a location, it is Rome and a few other influential cities that become bases
for the faith, not Jerusalem.

In a breathless tone, Aslan conveys old, stale,
and discarded theories about Jesus of Nazareth as if they are news.

Incomprehensibly, Aslan thinks that when Jesus tells the healed leper to present
himself to the priest, he is joking: “His command to the leper is a jest—a
calculated swipe at the priestly code” (112). No one who understands
Jesus’ views of the OT law would say such a thing; Jesus was being absolutely
serious. But Jesus was challenging the religious establishment of
his day. The Jews had certain ‘Messianic miracles’ in their tradition
that they believed only the Messiah could do—casting out a mute demon,
giving sight to someone born blind, and healing an Israelite leper. They believed
that God had reserved these miracles as identifying signs of the Messiah; so
it is not an accident that Jesus performed all three of these specific miracles.
When Jesus healed the leper, the leper would need to go to the Temple,
and the priests would have to go through the steps outlined in
Leviticus 14.
But it would also be something that had never occurred before, and
it would cause the religious authorities to investigate Jesus to see if He
really was the Messiah, since He did the miracle.

The dust jacket on the book claims that it is “meticulously researched”.
There is a several-pages-long bibliography (not impressive for the length of
the book), but he does not cite sources in a helpful way. After the text of
the book there is a “notes” section which among other things talks
about sources, but it is very hard to tell where a certain claim in the text
may have come from.

In a breathless tone, Aslan conveys old, stale, and discarded theories about
Jesus of Nazareth as if they are news. Anyone who studies in this area will
be bored well before the end of the introduction. Unlike the viral Fox News
interview would seem to imply, there is also nothing particularly Muslim about
his writing about Jesus (unlike the Quran, Aslan does believe that Jesus died
on the cross and was buried, though he does not claim to know what happened
afterwards). Better versions of this idea have been presented, decades ago,
and thoroughly refuted. The attention Zealot is getting is completely
undeserved.

References and notes

God did it in six days and rested on the seventh. A good model to follow as individuals but corporately, CMI provides new articles 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Will you consider a small gift to support this site? Support this site

Comments closed

Readers’ comments

Ndel I.,Jamaica, 1 October 2013

We should not be surprised when persons try to discredit Jesus and doubt that He is God. What they cannot explain is how so many lives have been miraculously transformed by His power. The Bible tells us to expect these things, but it also says that the day is coming when this same Jesus shall return to this earth as Lord and King. May we all be prepared to live in His Kingdom.

King T.,South Africa, 1 October 2013

Just an aside on the text “Give to God what is God’s”.

I've noticed in comments on other websites that quite a few Christians seem to miss the point that Jesus was making here.

The whole passage centers around what IMAGE is on the coin, meaning that the coin belongs to the one whose image it carries.

By implication then, what is it that bears the IMAGE of God? Why, all of mankind, of course.

So the Pharisees and Herodians who sought to trap Jesus should give themselves back to God.

Caesar has claim to but one tiny coin[and even then, it too is God's anyway] whilst God has claim to every living human being on the face of the earth.

Lita Cosner responds

Yes, we agree, see http://creation.com/fall-destroy-gods-image.

Ian C.,Canada, 1 October 2013

Well done, Lita!

This is the strongest and I think the best article that you have done so far! And it is a really worth-while contribution to us Christians who need to have good answers for people who throw at us such books as "The Davinci Code" and "The Shack", and others.

It is good to see CMI communicating with direct, incisive, factual material, instead of using the "Pablum" approach.

Clearly, much time and effort were expended on researching and writing this article. Thank you so much!

Robert S.,Australia, 2 October 2013

The author of this book and others of a similar mindset well demonstrate the truth of 2Peter 3:16

“…as also in all his [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.”

Colin N.,Australia, 2 October 2013

Ho hum.. don't these people ever listen? Rehashing this old idea I suppose may refresh it in the next generation's minds. His claim to be a student of Religion means little. There may be some truth in his claim to creative writing though.

Wayne T.,Australia, 4 October 2013

I purchased the book, always willing to listen to the views and arguments of others, and was hoping to find something new. No such luck. Just like Dawkins' "The God Delusion", the paucity of the evidence, the obvious rehashing of old arguments, and the wild unsubstantiated assertions left me feeling empty. I haven't bothered to finish either book. Scholarly it is not, and not even worthy of a professional review.

Terence B.,Australia, 5 October 2013

This book shows something far more noteworthy. It shows the spiritual state of so many in America-a kind of affiliation with Christianity, yet with a depravity of understanding regarding the scriptures. This highlights why ministries that explain and promote right understanding of scripture are so important.